SCS closure created safety concerns for drug users, study concludes
By Ry Clarke - Lethbridge Herald Local Journalism Initiative Reporter on January 26, 2023.
A new research study is showing the impacts of closures on safe consumption sites and how it creates a safety concern for people who use drugs.Researchers from Athabasca University, University of Alberta, and the University of Winnipeg, interviewed 50 people who use drugs about the impacts of the closure of Lethbridge’s supervised consumption site, closed back in August 2020, and the impacts of the closure.
The study found that people choose not to use a mobile replacement facility due to safety concerns, location, and lack of support services.
Back in 2020 the supervised consumption site in downtown Lethbridge was closed amid controversy, and replaced with an overdose prevention site located across from the stabilization centre. The research team, Katharina Maier (U of Winnipeg), Marta-Marika Urbanik (U of A), and Carolyn Greene (Athabasca U), had originally intended to focus their research on victimization and experiences impacting access to services in Lethbridge. But when the site was shut down, they switched gears to explore the impact of that policy decision.
“Dr. Urbanik and I were engaged in Edmonton and Calgary looking at the experiences of people in areas surrounding the safe consumption sites. Based on the finding we had there, we decided to expand out to Lethbridge, in part because the safe consumption services offered there were the most widely used in North America,” said Greene. “We ended up going into Lethbridge after the site closed, so we pivoted to look at what, if any, impact its closure had for people.”
Spending 10-12 hour days in the city, the trio interviewed those in the area gathering information.
“There were three key findings that emerged from the stories that people shared with us. Most of the folks who had access to the safe consumption site were no longer accessing harm reduction services in the same way they were going to at the new overdose prevention site,” said Greene, noting the three key reasons that emerged were: how they were allowed to use their drugs, the safety of getting to the new area coupled with concerns with the new location, and alternative services for aid no longer being offered.
With people no longer having access to the supervised consumption site, and not using the alternative overdose prevention site, they would instead use in public spaces.
“It was harmful to them because they are now using in public space, and that is not safe. That is not safe for anyone. It is a concern in terms of social order, we don’t want to encourage public drug use, and we know that safe consumption sites reduce public drug use,” said Greene. “The other thing to point out, and probably what made Lethbridge’s safe consumption site so well used, were the level of services that were provided. The wraparound services for clients. It wasn’t just a place you could use drugs supervised, there were other services you could be connected to. That was really important to the people and they really valued it.”
Research data from the study will help show how consumption sites are viewed by those accessing the services, but also with how society addresses the ongoing issues. “From our perspective based on the evidence, what it is telling us is that, in an ideal world we would re-establish a safe consumption site in Lethbridge, similar to the one offered by Arches,” said Greene. “Failing that, and given the climate in Alberta, that may not be likely. Expanding the number of overdose prevention sites in Lethbridge could be beneficial in the absence of a safe consumption site.” 2
-1
